User talk:O'delanca

{{expandstub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:190.17.208.185

Hello. Is there a reason you reverted [1] my edits to User talk:190.17.208.185? Your addition of another warning has me especially puzzled since I had already blocked [2] this IP. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I was edit conflicted with him vandalising his talkpage, and I assumed your edit was also vandalism. I apologise.--O'delanca (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Yeah, sorry about that. I've had a bad week. Will try to calm down --Maurice45 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding of {{expandstub}} and Category:stubs that need expanding

Given the trend of the discussion about these, it seems spectacularly ill-advised to do going around adding them to numerous additional articles. If it's an attempt to create "facts on the ground", then it's likely to be highly counter-productive, and borders on the disruptive. As has been pointed out, they're fundamentally redundant: do you plan on adding this to every stub in Wikipedia? Please stop. Alai (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not been entering the template into articles. I have been instead been adding the expand header, parameters and all, at the top of all the articles, and then adding the category individually with hotcat.--O'delanca (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the same applies to the category, and the same point applies to the duplication of expand and a stub template. The recent history of those articles now consists of half a dozen or more edits where the original is applied, then substed out, then tweaked some more, then the component parts removed, and then been re-added. In principle this could end up happening in every single stub: and to what purpose? Alai (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not understanding. I'm adding {{Expand}} and Category:Stubs that need expanding.--O'delanca (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that {{Expand}} should never be used on stubs, don't you? It's specifically mentioned in {{Expand/doc}}, Template talk:Expand, and Wikipedia:Stub that the two are mutually exclusive. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that on contrary, I've demonstrated that firstly, I do understand this, and secondly, that you should not be doing this. Kindly stop doing so.

On an unrelated matter, what on earth is the intent of your "assume bad faith" and "different MOS" talk-page banner? If this is intended to suggest you're entitled to assume bad faith, or edit to some style standard of your own, you're very much in error. If it's intended to suggest something else, it's not in the least clear.

Lastly, please do not edit other people's signed comments -- fixing typos is the thin end of a very thick wedge, and removing "leet" is another step in the wrong direction. Alai (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Uh, Alai - that comment about mutually exclusive templates was to O'Delanca, not you!) Grutness...wha? 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I pointed you to an appropriate policy to stop my persistant yellow box; as for my manual of style, an ''article'' has been created here. As for correcting typos, well, that is one matter I am unnegotiatable on.--O'delanca (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not an article, it's a template subpage, and it does nothing to explain your "manual of style", which seems to be in contravention of Wikipedia's manual of style which - given that this is Wikipedia, you should be following. However, it doesn't explain your "unnegotiable" (presumably meaning non-negotiable) breaking of Wikipedia etiquette. Nor does it explain why you persist in adding expand templates and a redundant stub category to articles already marked and categorised as stubs. The adding of the expand template is specifically prohibited, per the pages I listed above. Please stop it. Grutness...wha? 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its typos I'm non-negotiatable on, not my different manual of style.--O'delanca (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Userbox removal

Hi there, I was just trying to understand why you wanted to remove this userbox from my userpage? Have a great day!-- Tinu Cherian - 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. That was an error.--O'delanca (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, No issues. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi O'delanca - please stop adding articles to Category:Stubs that need expanding - it's totally redundant and highly disruptive. By definition, all stubs need expanding - that's why they're in stub categories. As such, stub categories are used to mark "stubs that need expanding". All you're doing is tying up valuable time for other editors which could be spent on actually working on articles. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, O'delanca. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Thorny_problem_with_a_newbie. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange warning on IP page

This edit of yours appears to be misplaced. I really don't see any violation of WP:Civil at all. I do see that editor using a talk page as a forum. Please be more careful and try to learn more about our policies and guidelines before offering ill-placed advice or offering to adopt other users. Your stated perspectives on WP:MOS and WP:AGF are not congruent with our policies. If you continue, you will likely end up with a topic ban restricting you from pursuing these agendas. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Expandstub

Template:Expandstub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

O'delanca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of Tom Sayle. I am, however, the same user as Stereotyper.

Decline reason:

See RFCU. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stereotyper has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Tom Sayle. By your own admission you are therefore Tom Sayle. Given that you do the exact same things he does, and all his sockpuppets have done--including denying that you're his sock, which is roughly akin to denying that gravity makes things fall down--I doubt that any admin will lift your block. [ roux ] [x] 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

O'delanca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For the fifth time I tell you I am not a sockpuppet of Tom Sayle!

Decline reason:

CheckUser has confirmed that you are — Tiptoety ^talk 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• A comment here. If you want to be unblocked because you aren't Tom Sayle, I suggest that you present some evidence to support your claims. Otherwise we will have had this conversation before. If your unblock requests don't actually present a reason to unblock you, I'll protect this page indefinitely. Considering that Tom Sayle is already protected due to abuse of the unblock template, this is a likely outcome. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

O'delanca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes. Tom Sayle slowly admits to his socks; I don't.

Decline reason:

That's not what we meant. I'm protecting this page to prevent more time being wasted. Please consider another hobby. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just as a note, I ran a CU in this case and I  Confirmed the connection as highly likely on a technical basis, which led to my making the original block. Certainly it is always possible to make a misidentification but in this case I adjudge it unlikely. I also note the lack of any presentation of anything that would disprove it, other than repeated assertion. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)